Islam a real religion?
Replies
-
:laugh:Quit hitting on me.0 -
In the Christian faith, it is wrong to kill (if not in self-defense). Period.When someone kills for no reason other than their religion says it's ok to kill in a specific situation, then we have a problem. There's really no arguing that. You can say it's against he law, or that it violates rights, or that it goes against another religious belief.0 -
In the Christian faith, it is wrong to kill (if not in self-defense). Period.When someone kills for no reason other than their religion says it's ok to kill in a specific situation, then we have a problem. There's really no arguing that. You can say it's against he law, or that it violates rights, or that it goes against another religious belief.
But you don't get to dictate what other Christians believe is Christian
All you can say is you don't believe that's what Christianity says. It's their beliefs. They can claim whatever they like and justify it through faith in whatever source just like you can. 0 -
Wrong. In Christianity, it's pretty easy to "dictate" that killing is wrong. I would gladly argue that with any other Christian who is trying to justify his act of murder.But you don't get to dictate what other Christians believe is Christian All you can say is you don't believe that's what Christianity says. It's their beliefs. They can claim whatever they like and justify it through faith in whatever source just like you can.0 -
Wrong. In Christianity, it's pretty easy to "dictate" that killing is wrong. I would gladly argue that with any other Christian who is trying to justify his act of murder.But you don't get to dictate what other Christians believe is Christian All you can say is you don't believe that's what Christianity says. It's their beliefs. They can claim whatever they like and justify it through faith in whatever source just like you can.
I think you're missing something. They have faith that they're right and that's all they need. They actually don't need to have the conversation at all. Your interpretation of whatever source, let's go with the Bible, tells you it's flat out wrong, and theirs doesn't. Their faith says that they don't have to listen to you because God's word says it's ok to kill in his name and they can call themselves Christian by their use of the word. Semantics of what they call themselves is sort of irrelevant. The important part is that your attempt at rationality fails because faith isn't rational at it's core--it is a choice to believe something when you can't know.0 -
The irony of enacting laws barring Sharia law while claiming that Muslims aren't allow to practice their faith is a little staggering. I think people who claim to be Christians can be just as violent as people who follow Islam. The fact that Christian terrorists more often tend to be lone wolves doesn't make much of a difference to me.
Islamic extremists declare holy war on popular media for insulting their religion.
Christian extremists walk into a church and shoot abortion doctors in the head.
I guess the point of making that comparison is that a lot of see evidence of Christian terrorism and may think to ourselves, "Uh, these are crazy people who aren't really Christians." It's possible that there are millions and millions of Muslims who may think the same thing about people who kill in the name of their faith.
Well, the comparison can be made, but it can't really be tested because there are so many x-factors and unknowables it is impossible. I'll be the first to acknowledge judeo-christian crimes of the past in a historical debate, but for whatever reasons you don't see the same level of extremism and violence that you see in Islam today. Why is that? Possible answers could be that Islam is fundamentally worshipped in parts of the world that are theocratic, completely silencing the moderates and free thinkers of their generations. We'll never know how many Muslims think that terrorists are insane because they can't speak out.
Freedom of religion tends to be a moderating influence on all sects and types or religion, including the non-believers because of the law. Then you have to look at socio-economic isues. Economies can drive criminal behavior. You also have to look at the ages of Islam compared to Christianity.
I guess part of my point that I could stated more clearly is that Christian extremism is just less publicly organized. It's still a very real threat today, and fairly obvious if we know where to look. As time passes the same may happen to Islam. If concepts of separation of church and state seep into that religious culture in the same that ours gives lip service to it, then it will likely remain a threat--it will just move away from official governmental backing.
I guess I would argue that you can see the same level of violence and extremism in Christianity today, it's just organized differently and stays under the radar. I also think that our society is probably more likely to call Christian terrorists something else, like fanatics or mental patients. But the fact is religion is a very real under current there.
I would agree that Christian fundamentalists represent a MUCH greater threat to American democracy than Islamic fundamentalists.
As horrific as 9/11 was, especially for the victims and their families, the subsequent damage to the American economy and way of life has been largely self-inflicted.0 -
In Christianity, we have one set of laws we are to follow and those sets of laws tell us that murder is wrong. I realize you can't attempt to have a rational discussion with someone who is mentally ill, so if we want to say anyone who murders another human being is mentally ill, then okay. But, if you're saying I can't have a rational discussion with another Christian who wants to argue murder is not wrong according to Christianity, I certainly can.I think you're missing something. They have faith that they're right and that's all they need. They actually don't need to have the conversation at all. Your interpretation of whatever source, let's go with the Bible, tells you it's flat out wrong, and theirs doesn't. Their faith says that they don't have to listen to you because God's word says it's ok to kill in his name and they can call themselves Christian by their use of the word. Semantics of what they call themselves is sort of irrelevant. The important part is that your attempt at rationality fails because faith isn't rational at it's core--it is a choice to believe something when you can't know.0 -
I'm not arguing that Christianity doesn't have a greater impact on Amercian democracy than Islam does. I tend to fear the spread of Islam more than the spread of Christianity, though.I would agree that Christian fundamentalists represent a MUCH greater threat to American democracy than Islamic fundamentalists.0 -
Islam is a religion. I've heard this nonsense before that it isn't and it's just pure bias. Not that I am openly endorsing Islam. I'm an atheist, screw Islam. But I say that about all religions. Difference is when I tell a modern christian to screw off, I don't get death threats. With Islam you do. Islam and freedom are currently at odds. As long as they understand that our laws supercede theirs in matters of personal freedoms and violence, have at it. But if they try and start Sharia law and honor killings.....call in the national guard.
How many formal death threats have been made by American Muslims or American Muslim groups?
I'm thinking the answer is "zero".
I don't think you can take the actions/attitudes of groups in Middle Eastern countries (and even then it is debateable whether those groups represent the majority) and automatically apply them to American Muslims.
As seen by the differing attitudes of American Catholics vs those from Rome on many issues, Americans of any faith can be pretty independent.0 -
In Christianity, we have one set of laws we are to follow and those sets of laws tell us that murder is wrong. I realize you can't attempt to have a rational discussion with someone who is mentally ill, so if we want to say anyone who murders another human being is mentally ill, then okay. But, if you're saying I can't have a rational discussion with another Christian who wants to argue murder is not wrong according to Christianity, I certainly can.I think you're missing something. They have faith that they're right and that's all they need. They actually don't need to have the conversation at all. Your interpretation of whatever source, let's go with the Bible, tells you it's flat out wrong, and theirs doesn't. Their faith says that they don't have to listen to you because God's word says it's ok to kill in his name and they can call themselves Christian by their use of the word. Semantics of what they call themselves is sort of irrelevant. The important part is that your attempt at rationality fails because faith isn't rational at it's core--it is a choice to believe something when you can't know.
You can try to argue, but ultimately they can just say you're wrong because that's not what they believe. It's not much of an argument at that point. Your interpretation of the rules doesn't match theirs. You can keep trying to prove your point, but there's no reason for them to accept it because they've chosen to believe a certain thing. Yell into the wind all you want, but you're fighting against the power of faith.0 -
I'm not arguing that Christianity doesn't have a greater impact on Amercian democracy than Islam does. I tend to fear the spread of Islam more than the spread of Christianity, though.I would agree that Christian fundamentalists represent a MUCH greater threat to American democracy than Islamic fundamentalists.
Well, I don't have much use for either one, but I am confident in the power of American ideals and democratic traditions. They have worked on every group of immigrants for the past 200+ years.0 -
I would argue that Christianity, in principle, has the most elevated view of the dignity and value of human life and therefore the strongest deterrent to murder and other forms of harming human life. Although Christianity includes principles or beliefs that transcend rationality (in the sense that they cannot be demonstrated through reason alone), Christianity does not propose truths or moral acts that are contrary to reason.0
-
But you don't get to dictate what other Christians believe is Christian All you can say is you don't believe that's what Christianity says. It's their beliefs. They can claim whatever they like and justify it through faith in whatever source just like you can.
I don't know what Christians you've been talking to, but there is a codified set of Christian beliefs.... it's the Bible. Whether all Christians faithfully adhere to these principles is obviously up for debate. But no Christian can just claim their own set of beliefs separate from the Bible and call it "faith."
From this and your other posts, it's clear you have pre-judged Christians... interesting, considering some of the other topics going on around here...
P.S. I'm not a Christian, but it's pretty easy to spot someone who is anti-Christian.0 -
I would argue that Christianity, in principle, has the most elevated view of the dignity and value of human life and therefore the strongest deterrent to murder and other forms of harming human life. Although Christianity includes principles or beliefs that transcend rationality (in the sense that they cannot be demonstrated through reason alone), Christianity does not propose truths or moral acts that are contrary to reason.
It doesn't really have to [propose truths or moral acts that are contrary to reason]--though we could probably argue about that. For example, first, accepting the existence of God is counter to reason in that we can't actually know if it's true or not. The nature of God is such that it requires faith. Second, believing that Jesus was the son of God and accepting into your heart is a minimum requirement for getting into heaven (many Christians have told me this, perhaps it's wrong) isn't what we'd traditionally call rational.
What I'm really talking about is the irrational nature of faith and how it can make rational discourse potentially problematic. A choice to believe something in face of not being able to know kind of cramps rationality's style.0 -
But you don't get to dictate what other Christians believe is Christian All you can say is you don't believe that's what Christianity says. It's their beliefs. They can claim whatever they like and justify it through faith in whatever source just like you can.
I don't know what Christians you've been talking to, but there is a codified set of Christian beliefs.... it's the Bible. Whether all Christians faithfully adhere to these principles is obviously up for debate. But no Christian can just claim their own set of beliefs separate from the Bible and call it "faith."
From this and your other posts, it's clear you have pre-judged Christians... interesting, considering some of the other topics going on around here...
P.S. I'm not a Christian, but it's pretty easy to spot someone who is anti-Christian.
I definitely pre-judge some Christians, though I couldn't point them out to until they open their mouths. So mostly the Christians I pre-judge are imaginary until I find out that they're real. My experience has taught me that using a blanket term like "Christain" frequently doesn't apply because the basis for the conversation is probably generates different views from different Christians who can all claim to have their view reinforced by their Christian faith.
There isn't one type of Christian on almost any topic. I think perhaps the only thing you can get all of them to agree on is that there's one God and they all know, individually, what his stance on life's issues are. Of course they don't all agree with each other..
EDIT: I'm not particularly anti-Christian. I think Christianity has got some cool ideas going on. I am a little anti-faith generally, but I don't think less of people who choose to have faith. It's really how they act on it that may ruffle my feathers. In this instance, speaking can count as an action 0 -
How many formal death threats have been made by American Muslims or American Muslim groups?
I'm thinking the answer is "zero".
I guess you've never heard of Anwar Al Awlaki, Nidal Malik Hasan, or Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad...0 -
“A choice to believe something in face of not being able to know” characterizes all human knowledge if you mean by that there are some “givens” in human knowledge that we build upon in structuring our lives, making decisions, etc. You cannot “prove,” for instance, that your senses are giving you reliable information about the world outside of you without using the very senses that are in question. You cannot prove deductive and inductive reasoning (that are used in all our logical processes) without making use of them. At a certain point we all must organize our experience of the world within a “hypothesis of meaning” that makes that experience coherent and understandable. That hypothesis either shows itself to be powerful in making sense of reality or it fails us. In respect to belief in God, there are plenty of good reasons to believe that there is a supreme, first reality upon which all dependent things depend. To my mind, at least, it makes sense to believe that God, in order to show his love for human beings (who want unending love and fulfillment), has come close to human beings within our history. This, of course, is Jesus Christ. There are plenty of specific theological claims that can be discussed (like the one you mentioned) but these are really secondary, I think. As a Catholic, for instance, I do not take it upon myself to judge the eternal destiny of anyone (including myself). God is the judge and he will do the right thing. That doesn’t mean, though, that I can’t make a judgment about what kinds of acts are good or evil (like murder, for instance) but it does mean that I can’t judge the subjective culpability of an individual, especially in terms of a final judgment on their life. I simply don’t have enough data to make that judgment.It doesn't really have to [propose truths or moral acts that are contrary to reason]--though we could probably argue about that. For example, first, accepting the existence of God is counter to reason in that we can't actually know if it's true or not. The nature of God is such that it requires faith. Second, believing that Jesus was the son of God and accepting into your heart is a minimum requirement for getting into heaven (many Christians have told me this, perhaps it's wrong) isn't what we'd traditionally call rational.
What I'm really talking about is the irrational nature of faith and how it can make rational discourse potentially problematic. A choice to believe something in face of not being able to know kind of cramps rationality's style.0 -
A choice to believe something in face of not being able to know kind of cramps rationality's style.
I feel the exact same way about atheists.0 -
All Christians should agree with The Ten Commandments. Not sure how anyone can argue against them if they call themselves a Christian.There isn't one type of Christian on almost any topic. I think perhaps the only thing you can get all of them to agree on is that there's one God and they all know, individually, what his stance on life's issues are. Of course they don't all agree with each other..0 -
A choice to believe something in face of not being able to know kind of cramps rationality's style.
I feel the exact same way about atheists.
I would guess you're using a definition of atheism that incorrect, or the atheists you've to have. Regardless, I'm an agnostic.0 -
I would guess you're using a definition of atheism that incorrect, or the atheists you've to have.
What are you possibly basing this on? What is your definition of atheism?0 -
“A choice to believe something in face of not being able to know” characterizes all human knowledge if you mean by that there are some “givens” in human knowledge that we build upon in structuring our lives, making decisions, etc. You cannot “prove,” for instance, that your senses are giving you reliable information about the world outside of you without using the very senses that are in question. You cannot prove deductive and inductive reasoning (that are used in all our logical processes) without making use of them. At a certain point we all must organize our experience of the world within a “hypothesis of meaning” that makes that experience coherent and understandable. That hypothesis either shows itself to be powerful in making sense of reality or it fails us. In respect to belief in God, there are plenty of good reasons to believe that there is a supreme, first reality upon which all dependent things depend. To my mind, at least, it makes sense to believe that God, in order to show his love for human beings (who want unending love and fulfillment), has come close to human beings within our history. This, of course, is Jesus Christ. There are plenty of specific theological claims that can be discussed (like the one you mentioned) but these are really secondary, I think. As a Catholic, for instance, I do not take it upon myself to judge the eternal destiny of anyone (including myself). God is the judge and he will do the right thing. That doesn’t mean, though, that I can’t make a judgment about what kinds of acts are good or evil (like murder, for instance) but it does mean that I can’t judge the subjective culpability of an individual, especially in terms of a final judgment on their life. I simply don’t have enough data to make that judgment.It doesn't really have to [propose truths or moral acts that are contrary to reason]--though we could probably argue about that. For example, first, accepting the existence of God is counter to reason in that we can't actually know if it's true or not. The nature of God is such that it requires faith. Second, believing that Jesus was the son of God and accepting into your heart is a minimum requirement for getting into heaven (many Christians have told me this, perhaps it's wrong) isn't what we'd traditionally call rational.
What I'm really talking about is the irrational nature of faith and how it can make rational discourse potentially problematic. A choice to believe something in face of not being able to know kind of cramps rationality's style.
Your reasons for believing in God are beautiful. They're also not rational. Your suggestion that all knowledge isn't rational because our senses are really just imperfect (that seems to be gist anyway) transmitters for the blobs of matter inside our skulls assumes a certain definition of knowledge, proof, and reality.
Knowledge requires a shared reality, faith does not. Faith is not a type of knowledge..not in a classical greek way, anyway.0 -
Knowledge requires a shared reality...
What does the color "red" look like?0 -
I would guess you're using a definition of atheism that incorrect, or the atheists you've to have.
What are you possibly basing this on? What is your definition of atheism?
You said you feel the exact same way about atheists. It makes me think that you feel like atheists cramp rationality's style. When I speak of atheism, I define it as a rejection of the belief that there is a God. Logically, it's not the same thing as believing there is no God, but seem to think that's what it means. If we compare that a more pure agnostic like myself, I don't really touch the belief side of things. I frequently have a problem with beliefs. I just claim that I can't know if God exists or not, and that's enough.
To be sure, some people claim to be atheists and state emphatically that there is no God. It's not a definition of atheism that really makes any sense to me.
There are also agnostic atheists who both don't claim to know if God exists while rejecting the belief in God. There are also agnostic theists who don't know there's a God, but they believe anyway.
Belief and knowledge are separate.0 -
Knowledge requires a shared reality...
What does the color "red" look like?
What kind of answer are you looking for? I could give a frequency range for lightwaves, or I could supply an example. Obviously if someone is colorblind, or just blind, the shared reality needs to be adjusted. The mode for talking about the color needs to be shifted somehow in a way that fits everyone's ability to perceive it. If the point is that reality sharing gets changed all the time because people's perceptions are different, then I agree. Knowledge changes all the time
The question is a bit of a trap because color, as a concept, is communicated on a perceptual level by the brain through the eyes instead of a linguistic level. They're two different pathways for accessing knowledge. There's an extra step in translation that needs to happen.0 -
When I speak of atheism, I define it as a rejection of the belief that there is a God. Logically, it's not the same thing as believing there is no God, but seem to think that's what it means.
I guess now we have to quibble about the definition of "God." How about... a supernatural consciousness that created the Universe. Now... either that notion of God exists or doesn't exist. If you state positively that you do not believe such a God exists, that leaves you with but one option.... you believe that such a God doesn't exist.
If I say to you, "I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 2" and you say, "I do not believe the number is one", then you are certainly also making the assertion that you *do* believe the number is two.
If you stick with agnosticism, you are saying "I cannot know if it is 1 or 2" and then I'm all kinds of on your side. But that's not what I hear atheists claiming. If you want to say that atheists merely reject the Judeo-Christian idea of God, but that such a view certainly leaves open the possibility for other ideas of what could be called "God", then I would agree with you. But if that were the case, they wouldn't be doing dumb **** like writing books and calling it "The God Delusion" now would they?
Perhaps you will now say I am allowing just a few atheists to speak for all... but would that be so unlike what you were doing earlier with Christians?0 -
The question is a bit of a trap because color, as a concept, is communicated on a perceptual level by the brain through the eyes instead of a linguistic level. They're two different pathways for accessing knowledge. There's an extra step in translation that needs to happen.
I'm talking about qualia, which is certainly knowledge but absolutely not shared. You have knowledge of the color red and I have knowledge of the color red, but it's impossible for me to experience what you think of as the color red and vice versa.0 -
When I speak of atheism, I define it as a rejection of the belief that there is a God. Logically, it's not the same thing as believing there is no God, but seem to think that's what it means.
I guess now we have to quibble about the definition of "God." How about... a supernatural consciousness that created the Universe. Now... either that notion of God exists or doesn't exist. If you state positively that you do not believe such a God exists, that leaves you with but one option.... you believe that such a God doesn't exist.
If I say to you, "I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 2" and you say, "I do not believe the number is one", then you are certainly also making the assertion that you *do* believe the number is two.
If you stick with agnosticism, you are saying "I cannot know if it is 1 or 2" and then I'm all kinds of on your side. But that's not what I hear atheists claiming. If you want to say that atheists merely reject the Judeo-Christian idea of God, but that such a view certainly leaves open the possibility for other ideas of what could be called "God", then I would agree with you. But if that were the case, they wouldn't be doing dumb **** like writing books and calling it "The God Delusion" now would they?
Perhaps you will now say I am allowing just a few atheists to speak for all... but would that be so unlike what you were doing earlier with Christians?
We would have to quibble about the nature of God, actually. I think a supreme being could probably find a way around either having to exist or not exist. I bet the all powerful creator of the universe can come up all kinds of options besides those two. In other words, I don't think you can constrain God to a binary view of existence, assuming such a being exists--for whatever existence for a such a being means. This is why I like agnosticism. It's much more calming. I don't have to worry about things I can't possibly know or conceive of.
I actually get quite tired of Dawkins. He's far too interested in the sound of his own voice, and he's kind of pompous. I don't particularly enjoy being called a fence sitting agnostic either, which he seems fond of.
As to whether or not I think you judge atheists, I would say that you should do what I with Christains. Wait for them to open their mouths to figure what they believe. If it seems like I pre-judge Christians, it's more accurate to say that I post judge Christians I've talked to, and merely acknowledge that they exist and sometimes use them as examples. Feel free to point out anywhere were I extend generalizations to all Christians. I don't see that I've done that really.
Personally, I get the feeling you just like saying "gotcha". If I'm wrong, sorry.0 -
The question is a bit of a trap because color, as a concept, is communicated on a perceptual level by the brain through the eyes instead of a linguistic level. They're two different pathways for accessing knowledge. There's an extra step in translation that needs to happen.
I'm talking about qualia, which is certainly knowledge but absolutely not shared. You have knowledge of the color red and I have knowledge of the color red, but it's impossible for me to experience what you think of as the color red and vice versa.
And yet we share the reality anyway through communication. We can still communicate color with each and a basic idea of what the other is talking about. This is why taffic lights work for those who can perceive it. Since most can, it works.0 -
Personally, I get the feeling you just like saying "gotcha". If I'm wrong, sorry.
No, that's sounds about right.0
This discussion has been closed.